tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC July 18, 2022 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
reznikov, thank you very much for sharing some time with, us we really appreciate it. >> thanks so much, appreciate it. >> that is all in on this monday night, the rachel maddow show starts right now, good evening rachel. e rachel maddo show thanks to you at home for joining us tonight. happy to have you here. so his son was 18. his daughter was 16. and on christmas eve 2020, that's, like, a month and a half after the 2020 election was for joe biden. on christmas eve 2020, his 18-year-old son went online to the fbi website totm tips.fbi.g, and he submitted a tip to the fbi aboute his dad. he told them his dad was planning to do something violent, that his dad was not onlyt calling for there to be violence against officials. he told the fbi that he believed his dad was actually planning to
do something violent himself. he told the fbi his father was planning to, quote, do some serious damage. that was christmas eve 2020 when that young man submitted that tip to the fbi. he didn't hear back initially. it took a couple of weeks. it took until after the january 6th, 2021, attack on the u.s. capitol building. then the fbi decided maybe that tip deserved some follow-up. by the time the fbi got in touch with the son,th the son's fathe had not only traveled from texas to washington, d.c., to take part in the january 6th attack on the capitol, he had come back home to texas afterwards and showed his staged kids c -- stad kids video of the attack. he told his kids in texas, that, yes, he participated in the attack, and yes, he definitely hadat a loaded gun with him durg the entire thing. he also threatened to kill his kids if they told anyone. he told his 18-year-old son and
his 16-year-old daughter, quote, if you turn me in, you're a traitor and traitors get shot. it was that staple day -- same day, ifto they told anyone, tha same day the son said yes when an fbi agent called and asked if he would meet with him to tell him what caused him to send in that tip about his dad to the fbi. the son that same day, the day that hisso dad threatened to ki him metad with an fbi agent, to him what he knew about his father's activities on january 6th and gave him something. when the dad told them about having his loaded gun with him, turns out the had been recording that conversation. and that dayha when he met with the fbi agent, he gave the recording to the fbi. and so that kid's dad, that was the first man who was put on trial for his role in the
january 6th attack. he's ahi man from wily transactions, guy rift. he was the first one put on trial in march 2021. he was charged with five felonies,it armed trespassing, found guilty, instruction of an official proceeding, guilty, interfering with police in a riot, guilty. transporting a firearm also guilty. the fifth was witness tampering. he was also found guilty of that, witness tampering for threatening his teenage son and daughter if they told what he had done. in the trial that he was doubly armed in d.c. that day, he had an ar15 assault rifle with him. he left that in the garage of his d.c. hotel on the day of the actual capitol attack. but his loaded semiautomatic smith & wesson pistol, that one he had holstered on his hip the
whole time while he led the pro-trump mob in attacking police officerse at the wing doors of the u.s. senate. he also had flex cuffs with him, police-style heavy-duty zip ties. he recorded video of himself talking about how he was looking forward to dragging members of congress out of the capitol building, quote, kicking and screaming. he said hequ specifically wante to drag house speaker nancy pelosi out of the capitol building by her ankles because he wanted to see her head hit every stair w on the capitol sts as he physically dragged her out.er guy reffitt is part of a pro-trump armed military group called the three percenters, a group well represented in washington during the attack. it's also a group that has surface north dakota physical indemnification against trump has targeted. but he was the first man put on
trial for january 6th alleged crimes and he was convicted on all counties, five felonies. it is now time for the court to hand down his sentence. now, his defense lawyers have the judge to give him less than two years in prison. who knows? federal sentencing guidelines suggest a term of more like 9 to 11 yearss in prison. but this is interesting, and this provides us some new insight. the prosecutors have askedin th judge for something called on upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. sentencing guidelines are for 9 to 11e years. they're asking for the court to consider a longer sentence than that. they're asking the a court to consider adding a sentencing, enhancement in his case on the grounds ofem terrorism, on the grounds of what he did fits the statutory definition of terrorism. quote, he engaged in acts of violence that were intended to influence the government through
intimidation or coercion -- acts that have been defined by, statute, as domestic terrorism. it is up to the judge whether or not to actually do that, to accept this terrorism enhancement on guy reffet's sentence. the practical consequence is steep. and the practical consequence is this guy shooting 15 years in prison, triple the sentence that anybody else received so far for their role in the capitol attack. and that incident, that handling of that one case tells us that the u.s. justice department has concluded that it's okay to treat the january 6th attack as terrorism, as domestic terrorism. they have concluded at theh justice department that in some cases the perpetrators of that attack should be prosecuted as the roosts. terrorists. that should go off to the rockette's redth glare to the 3
plus defendants still waiting to go on trial on charges related to january 6th. in the justice department, like bigha picture, right, they want people to cooperate with prosecutors. they want defendants to help prosecutors investigating the overall crimes. and help put otr criminals away. and of course you're under no obligation to cooperate. you're under no obligation to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors in their efforts. if you're innocent, there's no way you should plead guilty. you go to trial and you get acquitted because you didn't do it. but if if you are guilty and you decide you're not going to plead guilty and cooperate, you're instead going to go to trial and you get yourself convicted,il well, this new decision to seek a terrorism enhancement, this new decision by justice department prosecutors shows what you're going to face in that instance s could be somethg very much like what this guy is now up against with this. they're asking for 15 years in prison, which is no joke.
that could change everything for, you know, everyis other defendant whong right now is weighing their options weighing the risks of going to trial. the previous stiffest sentence was five years. they're asking now for 15. and we can see how that operates strategically in terms of the justice department trying to get people to plead guilty and cooperate with them in their own ongoing investigation of the people who physically attacked the capitol.m this is also just a good reminder about how much leeway the prosecutors have, how much of their own discretion the justice department and prosecutors can bring to bear in pursue and go punishing crimes like this through the courts. this is not -- this is not just math, it's not just an automatic process. it's notth like x crime happens that produces y prosecution, and that produces z sentence. these are human processes.
these are humans making strategic decisions for good and bad, and sometimes they'll get it right, sometimes they won't. but right now we're at an inflection bupoint. we're in this crucial moment in american history wondering if this justice department will use its discretion wisely. whether they will make good strategic decisions. are they going to get it right or are they not? some of the most crucial decisions toward those ends are being made right now. "wall street journal" reported over the weekend, for example, that the part of the justice department investigation that's looking at people higher up, looking at people other than those who physically attacked the capitol, that part of the investigation is getting larger and getting more resources. quote, a justice department team focusing on elements of the investigation beyond the violence at the capitol on january 6th has been given more personnel, more officeja space, and an expanded mandate. okay? more resources, that's part of
the justice department's strategic thinking here. now, whether that part of justice department investigatioe results iner any prosecutions remain to be seen. so far it hasn't.e i mean, as yet it works prosecutions the justice department has moved forward with beyond people who took part in the capitolnt riot itself, t only prosecutions they're acting on are two contempt of congress prosecutions against former trump advisers who refused to after novi subpoenas for them t testify and hand over documents to the january 6th investigation in congress. prosecutors said in court on friday that president trump adviser peter navarro had refused their offer of a plea deal. he could have pleaded guilty to one charge of contempt and agreed to respond to the subpoena as he is legally required to do, and in return they would have made sure he did more than 30 days in jail. peter navarro, according to prosecutors, said no to that, and so he will go to trial.
he of course will be trying for an acquittal, but if he is convicted, he will be facing up to two years in jail. on the other contempt charges, juryhe selection was today for e other trump adviser who's facing criminal contempt charges. in the steve bannon trial, we're expecting opening statements tomorrow. and then blink and you might miss it. we expect for itat all to be ov fairly quickly after opening statements. prosecutors said in the steve bannon case that they think they're only going to need one day to lay out their whole case against him.ey we don't know how long bannon's defense will take, but the judge already told the defense flowers pre-tile hearings he doesn't have much of a defense to mount. but he is going to trial and he will be trying for an acquittal. if he is convicted, he will be facing a year in jail. opening statements tomorrow in what is expected to be a fast trial of steve bannon in washington. so we're seeing prosecution of individual defendants who took part in physically attacking the
capitol. we're seeingn this couple of prosecutions for contempt of congress, people not participating -- not following legal summons that they need to follow related to the january 6th investigation in congress. we're also seeing some action around the fake electors part of the scheme. that net resulted in interesting activity by prosecutors in various ntplaces. in the state of georgia, three republican officials t from the state of georgia, including the state republican party chairman and the republican nominee for lieutenant governor in georgia, three republican g officials in that state have been advised by the fulton county, georgia, district attorney they might get indicted in their part in the scheme indicted under georgia state law.ne we know that federal prosecutors are also looking at the fake electors -- not only in georgia but in multiple states. we know federal prosecutors are interested in the fake elector
scheme from the chairman of the january 6th investigation, benny thompson, has told reporters that the committee is engaging with the justice department on fake electors specifically. we thinkhe that means that the january 6th investigators in congress are giving federal prosecutors some of what they have turned up on the fake electors issue. that issue specifically, not anything else. so we see bits and pieces of this being moved on at sort of different paces, right? to different degrees and with different amounts of resources beingdi devoted to these variou parts of the investigation. the justice department has a lot of latitude.de they have a lot of discretion in terms of how they go after this stuff, how manyud prosecutors a investigators they put to work on any part, how quickly they move to get investigations started and then to get them moved into search warrants and subpoenas and testimony and to indictments veultimately, how aggressively they ultimately charge what they believe to be provable crimes in court, what
kinds of sentences they ask for when they get convictions in court. given that, given the leeway they have, the discretion they have,t. is it worth worrying th they may beth moving too slowlyo ever even have a real chance to bring charges against the people at the top of the conspiracy? to that end, we have something new. this is a document that we have not been ned that has publishedha elsewhere. it is from attorney general merrick garland. it is addressed to all justice department employees. it is dated may 25th, 2022. so that's about eight weeks ago. but again, we believe the first time inwe this document has bee shown to the public, as you can see it is titled "election year sensitivities." this is particularly important in an election year. nowta that the 2022 election season isea upon us, and as in
prior election ucycles, i am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the policies with respect to political activists. this is ath memo that is from attorney general merrick garland. it has his signature on the top of it in blue ink. and then it says this. under the heating statements, investigations and charging near an election. quote, the department of justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election-related crimes such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, corruption of the election process. as department employees, however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the department's reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship. simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of p federal investigators ore prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. law enforcement officers andig prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements, attributed or not, meaning on background or not. investigative steps, criminal
charges, or any other action in any c matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election or giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. such a purpose or the appearance of such a purpose is against the prince of federal prosecution. charges or other actions near the timeos of a primary or genel election, contactim the public integrity section for further guidance. such consultation is also required at various stages of all criminal matters that focus on violations of federal and state campaign finance laws, and corruption of the election process. and now get this. finally, department employees must also adhere to the additional requirements issued by the attorney general on february 5, 2020. february 5th, 2020, governing the opening of criminal and counterintelligence investigations by the department, including its law
enforcement agencies related to politically sensitivity entities. see memorandum of william barr. any questions regarding the scope or requirements of the februaryg 2020 attorney generas memorandum should be directed to the public integrity section. again, this memo from merrick garland to the justice department to all justice department employees was sent out eight weeks ago in late may. we believe this is the first time it's been made public. and in large part, this memo from the attorney general follows both the letter and the spirit of previous letterspubl other attorneys general around election time. basically says, look, we can't look likeim we're acting to effectuate a particular outcome. that means we may delay certain steps it would otherwise take even to avoid the perception we're trying to influence election outcomes. we haveue seen that kind of
guidance before from attorneys general of all stripes. that's omfine, that's at least noncontroversial. but this last part about bill barr's instructions from 2020? that's kind of a surprise. february 2020, trump attorney general bill barr put out new guidance over and above what all attorneys general hadr previouy said. and what bill barr said in february 2020 was specifically that, in essence, nobody is allowed to investigate anybody connected to a presidential candidate without his permission personally as attorney general.a barr's memo from february 2020, the language of it specifically said, quote, no investigation, including any preliminary investigation, may be opened or initiated by the department or any of its law enforcement agencies of aen declared candide foror president or vice preside, a presidential campaign, or a senior presidential campaign staff member or adviser absent prior written approval of the attorney general through the deputy attorney general.
trump attorney general bill barr established that new rule in february 2020, no investigating any declared candidate for president or anybody working for that candidate unless i personally give my permission. that new rule was established by bill barr when he was working for donald trump. merrick garland has just formally extendeds that guidan and told every employee at the justice department that it is stillnt in effect. notice went out in late may, we are reporting it here for the first time. what's happened meantime since that guidance went out from merrick garland to every justice department employee telling them that theti bill barr advice is still in effect and any investigation, including the openingd of any investigation that applies to a candidate for president or anybody working for a candidate for president that has to getng his personal signo. what has happened since late may
when this went h out? well, former president donald trump has had the delightful experience of the january 6th investigation essentially out a realtime prime time criminal referral of him to the justice department. justice department, which is poking along with his own cases at its own pace, may be more interested in the fake electors maybe just cally, spending a lot of time watching the january 6th investigators marveling at the neat stuff they turned up.in that's happened since this memo went out, and also since this memo went out, trump hasth responded to all these revelations about him and january 6th by reportedly moving to speed up his own declaration that he's going to be a candidate for president again. and that, of course, is despite thean interests of the republic party, which will likely not be helped at all by him telling the countryal formally that he intes to lead the republican party again right before people have
to decide this fall whether to put republicans in power in congress. it wouldn't bepu good for the republican party if trumpou announces he's a candidate for president again before the midterm elections happen.s wouldn't be good for his party, but it wouldon be very much in keeping up with his own putting as many road blocks as possible for prosecution of himself. jennifer ruben writing at "the washington post" today said, the january 6th wacommittee's remarkable success in fact finding and presenting evidence against trump leaves the justice department on the defense and scrambling to staff up. the department now faces the prospect that trump will announce his presidential run in the fall, which the former president will use to cast any subsequent charges as political efforts to keep him from office. fair enough. january 6th investigation chairman bennie thompson was just asked about this tonight. >> what do you think the implications would be of the former president announcing another presidential run? he's a clearly toying with doin it at some point in early fall.
what impact does that have on your investigation if he's an active candidate? >> two years, two years before the election? >> yeah. >> i would think none. >> it's unorthodox to announce, but even if it is -- >> look, we are a nation of laws, and if a person breaks the law, or is accused of breaking the law, he's not one who can just do what he chooses because he's running for president. so, donald trump is just like every other american citizen in this situation.na >> if a person breaks the law or is accused or breaking the law, he's not one who can just do what he chooses because he's running for president. so donald trump is just like every other american citizen in this situation. it woulder be unorthodox to announce two years in advance that he's a candidate for president. why would he do that?
now we know now that we've obtained this justice department memo. it concludes something into actions. if he announces himself as a declared candidate for president, that means any investigation that relates to him or anyone working for him has to be personally cleared in writing through the very highest echelons of the justice department. the justice department has a lot of discretion in how it pursues criminal prosecution, how many to apply to a particular w problem, how aggressive to be inly charging d sentencing decisions. and nghonestly, in how fast to move.ec are they being outflanked? joining us now is andrew weissman, he previously served as the fbi general counsel, senior member ofen robert mueller's investigative team. thanks for being here. >> nicee to be here. >> so we've obtained this relatively recent memo from attorney general garland. in some ways, it reups what we've seen from previous
attorneys general saying there are sensitivities around election years, but the last highest level of written approval for any investigation s of publicly declared presidential candidates. i wanted to ask your reaction to that from the attorney general. >> so i'm sort of two minds about this memo. on the one hand, i think that it is understandable for a reputable, honest attorney general to want to make sure that there's no improper political interference by anyone at the department of justice, whether it's prosecutors or agents. on the other hand, the bill barr justice department was anything but a justice department. the rule of law was so flouted that the idea of re-upping something that he put in place is one that i'm not sure if i
were at the department i woulde look at with anything other than saying i am not bringing a case against anyone at the white house until such time as i personally approve it no matter how much evidence seems to be accumulated in the january 6th committee hearings. so, you know, i think it's a plus/minus. you know, it probably could have been phrased a lot better and clearer to people at the justice department. >> you've been critical of what seems to be publicly evident about the way justice department prosecutors have pursued january 6th. you've described how in lots of criminal prosecutions it makes sense to sort of approach this from the bottom up, to bring people at the lowest levels on board a as quickly as you can a
then pressure them to flip and tell what they know as you move towards bigger firchlt you said while that may be the most appropriate way to approach big investigations, in this case that might bebi too slow and th might mean the prosecutors are missing some of what'st obviou. i wonder if you still feel that way, and if recent events have born that out for you. >> the thing i was really interested in, rachel, that you quoted from in "the wall street journal" reporting was this idea of an expanded i mandate, not jt moreea personnel and more offic space, but an expanded mandate. and of course everyone's question is what does that mean? is it expanded to include all of the evidence of criminality that was laid out by the january 6th committee? in other words, not just who attacked thein capitol on janua 6th and not just fake electors, but what was going on at the department of justice in terms of beheading jeffrey rosenstein
to get a lackey, what is going on in other states, the pressuring of the vice president of the united states. all of that seems to me to be appropriate for a criminal investigation. and i think to make people understand the concern here, the concern here was raised when cassidy hutchinson testified and there was wide reporting that prosecutors of the department of justice who were listening to what she had to say were just as surprised by what she had to report as all of uso , you know who are just citizens. nd that's really surprising to me. i think it should be surprising to people as to where was the department andas why were they behind in the investigation that they were alerting along with us what she had to say, because obviously what she had to say, i think, for most people who were looking at this objectively, it
was quite disturbing about what was happening and not happening at the white house. >> andrew weissman, former fbi general counsel, former senior member special counsel of robert mueller, and a veteran of consequential investigations at the justice department. andrew, thank you for making time tonight. good to see you. >> nice to see you. >> we got much more to get to tonight. stay with us.ti you. you. >>yyy. no waaayyy! no way! [phone ringing] hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal. tonight. tonight. stay with usit brings home how important it is to hold on to the people we love and the things that matter to us. aspirin helps reduce the chance of another heart attack by 31%.
your heart isn't just yours. aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece. preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. "preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies" "and its from the eye experts at bausch and lomb"
so, ask your doctor about adding preservision. and fill in a missing piece of your plan. like i did with preservision" >> we got much more to get to >> we got much more to get to reduce background noise. super disctintive. zero lace model. adjusts to low light. and pans and zooms to keep you in frame. take a look at this. so the whole team stays on track. okay, let's get you some feedback.
i'm impressed. great, loving your work. meta portal. the smart video calling device that makes work from home, work for you. this is xfinity rewards. meta portal. the smart video calling device our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app.
thursday night this week is the next january 6th hearing, and perhaps the last one for a while. the united states secret service is facing a deadline of tomorrow to respond to a new subpoena from the committee. and of course this is all happening now alongside the ongoing criminal trial in washington, d.c., of trump adviser steve bannon. he's being tried for defying his own subpoena from the investigation. joining us now is democratic congressman adam schiff, he's a member of the january 6th committee. thank you for joining us tonight. >> good to be with you. >> let me start by asking you first about what's going on with this subpoena to the secret service. a lot of this drama unfolded late last week, including the inspector general and the believing of what may have happened with the secret service when they faced a request for information from their department related to january 5th and 6th. what can you tell us about the
status of this conflict with the secret service and what you're expecting to get in response to that subpoena. >> my understanding at present, and this is still very much an ongoing investigation, is that some of these text messages were either lost or destroyed. whether they were lost or destroyed because of negligence or willfully, we have yet to determine. but there's a very strong conflict between what we're hearing from the department of homeland security and what the secret service is telling the public. i have to say that statement we saw from the secret service that basically there were messages lost but none of them pertain to what we're investigating, i don't know how they're lost. something doesn't seem quite right, and we hope to find out as soon as tomorrow what has been preserved, what was lost, and begin to find out some of the circumstances in which those
messages may have been discarded. >> we're getting a little more information tonight about what to expect on thursday. obviously it's a decision of some consequence in it's own right that the hearing on thursday will be in prime time. you can expect a larger audience for that. and i think larger expectations to go along with that. we also have been told to expect a couple of -- at least it's been reported, a couple of live witnesses who were both inside the trump white house at fairly high-level positions leading up to and through days around january 6th. what should we understand in terms of how close to the end you are? we keep hearing from you and other members of the committee that there's still more to find out, there's still more to get to the bottom of, that the investigation has turned up a lot of stuff, actually, in recent days since the hearings have been in public. at the same time, it does seem like this is going to be the last public hearing for quite some time. >> you know, i think at the beginning of this process when we were scheduling and sketching out the hearings, we did
conceive of this as probably the end of this first set of hearings, even while we were considering another set of hearings in the fall that was focused on recommendations for protecting democracy going forward. but as we've added hearings like we did with cassidy hutchinson, we realized witnesses continue to come forward, and we may very well be adding other hearings to accommodate new evidence and testimony. you know, we haven't made firm conclusions about that. we want to give ourselves the freedom and flexibility to present to the public whatever we feel the public really needs to know. i think in the next hearing you will hear accommodation of live testimony. you'll hear part of video testimony that you haven't seen before. and most importantly, we will try to weave it together so people understand what happened in that period of time when donald trump sat in the white
house and watched the capitol being attacked. >> in terms of that time line, one of the reasons that i'm thinking anew about the overall time line of your investigation is this memo we just obtained from attorney general merrick garland. it's an all-employees memo from the attorney general to everyone at the justice department reminding them about election year sensitivities, reiterating the kind of advice we've seen from previous attorneys general about the department not taking any steps in election season that might look like they were designed to effectuate some disadvantage some candidate or political party. he goes a step further and says that attorney general bill barr's advice from february 2020 is still in effect and is still justice department policy. in that new guidance from bill barr as of february 2020 said any investigation involving a declared candidate for president had to be personally cleared
through the attorney general in writing. a declared candidate for president or anybody working at a senior level for somebody in that position. with donald trump now openly sort of mulling the prospect of declaring himself once again to be a candidate for president, i wonder if you and your colleagues on the committee feel pressure at all in terms of the time ticking, the justice department by policy is a little more reticent and puts more hurdles in the way of putting any federal prosecution or opening federal investigations of people who are declared candidates. we're getting closer and closer to that each day with trump. does that affect your thinking of the timing here? >> we are moving on as expeditiously as we can, so i don't know how much it will affect your own timing, but it does, i think, raise the question of why the justice department was so slow to pursue these other lines of effort to overturn the election.
they did seem to proceed with alacrity with those breaking into the capitol, but with respect to all these pressures with the fake elector plot, any number of other efforts which many, like judge carter in california believed violated the law, why it appears only now that is given a sense of urgency, i will say this to add onto what andrew weissman was saying. it is a bit rich to be citing bill barr for anything that has to do with the independence of the justice department considering how badly he disrupted the independence of that office. yes, we're glad bill barr finally found a line he wouldn't cross, but he crossed a lot of lines before he got there. and i agree, that's not the precedent i would cite. finally, rachel, i agree with the assessment, whether it's based on this memo or otherwise,
that donald trump believes, among other things, that running for president is lucrative, but it also may help him stay one step ahead of jail. >> yeah. and whatever the obscure derivations of the justice department decision to not bring prosecutions against people who are serving as president of the united states, whatever the derivations are of that policy, former president trump feels very, very, very aware of it and seems to be factoring it into his future political plans in the midst of your investigation. democratic congressman adam schiff, member of the january 6th investigation, chair of the house intelligence committee, sir, always a pleasure to have you here. thanks, for making time tonight. >> thank you. >> all right. we'll be right back, stay with us. r making time tonight.
panera's unlimited sip club. ♪♪ is this where your grandparents cut a rug, with a jitterbug? or returned from war, dreaming of the possibilities ahead. ♪♪ where your dad waited for his dad to come home from the factory. is this where they gathered on their front steps, with fats domino on the breeze... ancestry can guide you to family discoveries in the 1950 census. see what you can uncover at ancestry. - technology transformed the way we talk. it's about time it changed the way we listen. this is lively. it's more than just a hearing aid. it's wearable hearing tech with optimized settings for different situations.
in wisconsin, a woman had an incomplete miscarriage. she bleed for more than ten days after emergency room staff wouldn't remove the tissue from her fetus. doctors at a hospital in michigan found themselves treating a woman from out of state. she had the cross state lines to get care if a leaving the ectopic pregnancy, which is never viable. doctors say that it could have caused a rupture at any moment
that would have killed this woman, but a doctor in her home state that the presence of a fetal heartbeat made a procedure to remove it illegal and wouldn't do it, even though it risked her life. in louisiana, a doctor described treating a patient whose water broker at 16 weeks. the fetus was not available. the patient want her doctor to perform a common 15-minute abortion procedure, but the patient was told under louisiana's new law outlawing abortion, she would have to have an induced delivery instead. in an affidavit filed in court, the patient was forced to go through a painful hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice. quote, she was screaming, not from pain, but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing. and then she hemorrhaged nearly a liter of blood. there is absolutely no medical basis for my patient or any other patient to experience
anything like this. this is my first time i couldn't give the patient what they needed. this is a travis. one ob/gyn in texas described a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous infection in her womb. the fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, though, so an immediate abortion, which would be the usually standard of care, would have been illegal under texas's abortion ban. the doctor said, quote, we physically watched her get the sicker and sicker until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day. the patient required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine, all because we were essentially 24 hours behind. those are just a handful of the stories doctors have been willing to put on the record about the consequences all over the country of the supreme court overturning a right to an abortion. it is not theoretical. it is happening now. and we have more on that straight ahead. stay with us. g now.
time. it's life's most precious commodity, especially when you have metastatic breast cancer. when your time is threatened, it's hard to invest in your future. until now. kisqali is helping women live longer than ever before when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant... in hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's proven to delay disease progression. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain... a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection,
a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. your future is ahead of you, so it's time to make the most of it with kisqali. because when you invest in yourself, everyone gets the best of you. [ "back to life" by soul ii soul ] because when you invest what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger? now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class.
illinois. she's telegram senate hearing that in states like missouri where abortion is now illegal, the landscape for pregnant women with medical emergencies is in her words, quote, mass chaos. she joins us now, chief officer of planned parenthood. thanks for making time to be here. >> thank you so much, rachel. happy to be here. >> so in missouri, one of the places you practice, abortion is now illegal except in medical emergencies that cause irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. you said that standard in missouri is basically causing mass chaos at a practical level in terms of what care doctors can provide and what women have to go through. is anything resolving over time? is anything becoming more clear? >> you know, you opened with lots of stories from not just missouri, but from across the country where physicians are really struggling because this
medical emergency exception is totally unworkable. folks are not practicing the best medicine because they're afraid of going to prison. >> in terms of what remedies are available here, i was curious when you talked hospitals' lawyers and health systems' lawyers, particularly big hospitals with big legal departments, big institutions that are considering issues like this, could they be taking a more proactive stance on this instead of telling doctors to wait for a patient to be sick enough, could they say, you know, give your best care and if they come after you, if it comes to it, we will defend you? is there a way to be more forward leaning on this, particularly doctors who have more institutional support than people who are operating in private or small practices? >> you know, sure, it's always great to have the support of your institution and the lawyers there. but the truth is, if you live in a state with an aggressive and
rehabbedly anti-choice attorney, no reassures from your hospital or hospital legal system or lawyers is going to make you feel comfortable enough to continue to provide at a care when the reality is that it's a criminal penalty to violate this law. and so it's just totally unworkable and has led to, as i said in the hearing, total chaos among a group of health care professionals who went into this to heal people and not to have to sit there and wait for other lawyers or attorneys general to tell them it's okay to proceed. >> and you told at the hearing last week you want congress to use every bit of your power to do something. what do you think they could do given what the supreme court has undone? >> you know, we've seen a good step in the statements around enforcement of the emergency medical clause that does say that hospitals and physicians
when presented with a patient in an emergency situation must be treated. but the truth is, that's only going to affect a small minority of folks who need abortion care. we need the administration and we need folks not just at the federal level but state level in states where there is further opportunity to protect access to do so, to allocate funds. we really need a whole of government and, truthfully a whole of medicine response to this public health emergency. >> dr. colleen mcnichols, chief medical officer of planned parenthood of the st. louis region and southwest missouri. i know this is a really difficult and chaotic time. thanks for helping us understand. thanks for what you do. >> thank you so much. more news ahead. stay with us tonight. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> to help actively repair acid-weakened enamel.
i recommend pronamel repair to my patients. stay with us tonight ♪ ♪ aleve. who do you take it for? as someone living with type 2 di es, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com
- [female narrator] five billion people lack access to safe surgery. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need. join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on